Review of “Cool Hand Luke”

Review of “Cool Hand Luke(lo͞ok)”

By Roger Ebert

All these years after the release of “Cool Hand Luke” in 1967, all you have to do is say, “What we have here is–failure to communicate.” Everyone knows the line, and everyone can identify the film, even those who may not have seen it. And here’s the curious(ˈkyo͝orēəs) part. As they make the connection, they’ll invariably(inˈve(ə)rēəblē) smile, as if recalling a pleasant(ˈplezənt) experience, a good time at the movies. Have you seen “Cool Hand Luke” lately? I have. Rarely(ˈre(ə)rlē) has an important movie star suffered more, in a film wall-to-wall with physical punishment(ˈpəniSHmənt), psychological cruelty(ˈkro͞oəltē), hopelessness and equal parts of sadism(ˈsāˌdizəm) and masochism(ˈmasəˌkizəm,ˈmaz-).

It is a great film. On that most of us can agree. But such a film could not possibly be made in more recent decades, not one starring Brad(brad) Pitt or Tom Cruise(kro͞oz) or other actors comparable to Paul Newman’s stature(ˈstaCHər). It is simply too painful. I can imagine a voice at a studio pitch(piCH) meeting: “Nobody wants to see that.” Much was made by many critics(ˈkridik), myself included, of Newman’s “anti-hero” stature in “Luke” and other films he made around the same time: “The Hustler(ˈhəslər),” “Hud(həd),” even “Butch(bo͝oCH) Cassidy and the Sundance(ˈsən ˌdans) Kid.” I’m no longer sure he’s an anti-hero in “Cool Hand Luke.” I think he’s more of a willing martyr(ˈmärdər), a man so obsessed(əbˈses) with the wrongness of the world that he invites(inˈvīt) death to prove himself correct. Louis Armstrong once said, “There are some folks(fōk) that, if they don’t know, you can’t tell ‘em.” The brutal(ˈbro͞odl) guards(gärd) who rule the work camp(kamp) where Luke is a prisoner(ˈpriz(ə)nər) demonstrate time and again that if he escapes, he will be captured and punished to within an inch(inCH) of his life. Since he knows that, is he is seeking punishment?

…
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-cool-hand-luke-1967